HTML-Windows question

J

Joel Shepherd

Steve said:
Often the back button is extremely slow with many websites as they
reload pages, as I said previously, especially if you hit it many
times to get back to base.

If that's how you use it, then you aren't using it very intelligently
-- nearly every graphical browser allows you to go back many pages
with one click -- and should be very careful before critiquing its
(supposed) deficiencies.
 
W

Whitecrest

original website
A blind or vision-impaired user will probably lose sight of the original
website when suddenly they can't just use their back command, and they can't
just look at a taskbar to see that a new window is opened? Some audio
readers announce a new window but not all and it's easy to miss it.

Of course, one might think that if the READER is missing it, maybe the
READER is where the problem is....
 
W

Whitecrest

Quote: http://diveintoaccessibility.org/day_16_not_opening_new_windows.html
Lillian benefits. Her Internet Explorer window is always maximized (so she
can see it), and new windows also open maximized by default...

So the world should revolve around Lillian....
I've guided my mother through closing windows many times and I know she
still doesn't get the concept of layered windows....

So what you are telling us that that you in fact haven't guided your
mother through it, if she still has problems.
Well that's so nice of you to be the guide of the web....

As opposed to Lillian...
What happens when a user finds what they're looking for on the first try
within your hypothetical search engine. They've fond the perfect result, so
why should the engine results remain?

More likely, what if they didn't.
 
W

Whitecrest


Why bother quoting a document that is flawed?
Which browsers do this? IE, Netscape, Mozilla, and Opera don't. Caching is
intregal in most browsers.

So you are forcing the user to use the cache eh? Don't say, that the
default is for it to be on, because I will come back with Javascript is
ok then because by default it is on.
I do all the time....

Sure you do.... In usenet land, where anything is the truth...
 
W

Whitecrest

If that's how you use it, then you aren't using it very intelligently
-- nearly every graphical browser allows you to go back many pages
with one click -- and should be very careful before critiquing its
(supposed) deficiencies.

So you assume the user is smart enough to use a back button, but to
stupid to close a window.....
 
W

Whitecrest

It's opinion backed by experience and peer review.

The key is that the people that write the fact (your peer group) refuse
to believe that there is any other option other than there FAQ. Sorry,
I think that makes your FAQ flawed.
Not all opinions are created equal.

Remember that includes yours.
 
M

Michael Wilcox

Whitecrest said:
So you are forcing the user to use the cache eh?

What the hell? Now I'm responsible for a feature of their browser? No, I
made a web page correctly and their browser chose to render it a certain
way. I gave them the option to continue using their back button versus
completely removing the option once a new window was opened.

Even if their back button is slow, what if they still want it? What if a
user *doesn't* want a cluttered screen? What if I'm okay with a back button
that takes a second to load a page? Better to have the option and not use it
all the time then to take it away completely by opening some new window.
 
W

Whitecrest

What the hell? Now I'm responsible for a feature of their browser? No, I
made a web page correctly and their browser chose to render it a certain
way.

So it is ok for YOU to want your page to render a certain way, but not
for me to want it to render a certain way....
I gave them the option to continue using their back button versus
completely removing the option once a new window was opened.

But I gave them the option of clicking the little X to close the window.
Even if their back button is slow, what if they still want it?
What if a
user *doesn't* want a cluttered screen? What if I'm okay with a back button
that takes a second to load a page? Better to have the option and not use it
all the time then to take it away completely by opening some new window.

And no one in the world would have it any other way.... Wake up and
take a bite off the reality donut...

The WEB is BIG, different things turn on different people. I personally
like links opening new windows. I find it more irritating to FORCE me
to right click and open a new window than the NICE sites that do it for
me automatically.
 
J

Joel Shepherd

Whitecrest said:
So you assume the user is smart enough to use a back button, but to
stupid to close a window.....

No, that'd be another debate.

I'm simply pointing out that "Steve R."'s understanding of how to use
a back button appears to be inadequate. He might take that as a hint
to be a little more circumspect before assuming how others use their
own browsers.
 
J

Joel Shepherd

Whitecrest said:
The key is that the people that write the fact (your peer group)

.... Uh ... I had nothing to do with the creation of any HTML FAQ
(other than the microFaq, if that's still around). Is that clear?
refuse to believe that there is any other option other than there
FAQ. Sorry, I think that makes your ...

Not mine ...
FAQ flawed.

So, you're judging the quality of the information in the FAQ by the
perceived characters of its author(s) (who you can't even identify
correctly), rather than by the technical information it contains?

That seems like a bad idea.
Remember that includes yours.

Sure. If I give you my opinion on how best to achieve speed-of-light
travel, you should be dubious. I know nothing about it. If I give you
my opinion on the relative merits of various countrys' aircraft
carrier designs in the 1930s and '40s, you might listen more closely.
Not only do I know a little bit about it, but my opinion is backed by
years of historical research by myself and (especially) others. Could
be wrong, but you'd have to put effort into proving it.

If you have reason to believe the people writing "the FAQ" are
incompetent boobs, then don't consider it. But I question the purpose
of telling people (especially novices, who are in poor position to
judge anyone's opinion) to dismiss it because it voices certain
positions you don't always agree with.
 
M

Michael Wilcox

Whitecrest said:
So it is ok for YOU to want your page to render a certain way, but not
for me to want it to render a certain way....

No, they can render it any way they want, but whether the browser does or
doesn't cache isn't my choice. I'm not "forcing the user to cache" like you
said, but I would break their browser if my new window took away their
history.
The WEB is BIG, different things turn on different people. I
personally
like links opening new windows.

Does your personal preference override those of other people? What if a new
window doesn't "turn them on"? Not specifying target="_BLANK" would let them
make the choice.
I find it more irritating to FORCE me
to right click and open a new window than the NICE sites that do it
for
me automatically.

And when do you know when a user wants a new window? Whenever you feel like
it?

And I'm so sorry that a few extra clicks gets you so angered.
 
L

Leif K-Brooks

Whitecrest said:
So the world should revolve around Lillian....

I'll explain this to you again: Lillian can get what she wants, and so
can you. You know how to right click, Lillian knows how to click.
Everybody wins.
 
W

Whitecrest

No, that'd be another debate.
I'm simply pointing out that "Steve R."'s understanding of how to use
a back button appears to be inadequate. He might take that as a hint
to be a little more circumspect before assuming how others use their
own browsers.

But you also have to admit, that, your views (as well as mine) are just
one point of view. There are others.
 
W

Whitecrest

... Uh ... I had nothing to do with the creation of any HTML FAQ
(other than the microFaq, if that's still around). Is that clear?

I did not say you had a hand in writing it, you need to look up the
definition of the word peers if you intend to use it then.
Not mine ...
peers?

So, you're judging the quality of the information in the FAQ by the
perceived characters of its author(s) (who you can't even identify
correctly), rather than by the technical information it contains?

Nope, I am judging the FAQ by the fact that it is only part of the
story. there are other views on what is right and wrong with the web.
You and your peer's FAQ is just piece of the puzzle. There are amy
more, and they are all different, and they all fit together in this
thing we call the web.
Sure. If I give you my opinion on how best to achieve speed-of-light
travel, you should be dubious...

Here let me use Iso's favorite line.... Straw man argument...
 
L

Leif K-Brooks

Whitecrest said:
Because I am making a presentation with my web site, and I can choose
how I want to display it. If you don't like it, you have the ability to
go elsewhere.

I promise you, you've lost me as a potential customer.
 
W

Whitecrest

No, they can render it any way they want...

Thats not what you said.
but whether the browser does or
doesn't cache isn't my choice. I'm not "forcing the user to cache" like you
said....

No, but your whole argument depends on the fact that it is using cache.
Does your personal preference override those of other people?

Actually on my site, my preferences are what are important. Sorry you
disagree with this, but isn't it nice that we live in a world where we
can both have different ideas on what is right.
And when do you know when a user wants a new window?

Nope, Bit I know when I want to have a new window pop up.
And I'm so sorry that a few extra clicks gets you so angered.

Actually it is the same number of clicks that get you pissed off too....
 
W

Whitecrest

I'll explain this to you again....

No, let me explain this to you (again). There is nothing in the world
you could possibly say that would get me to reply "Son of a doggy, your
right, I have been wrong all these years..." And there is nothing I can
say that will get you to do the same.

I think it is very pig headed to sit there and say, that your way is
right for all, and no one should ever do anything differently that what
you do. Are you (and others) so insecure that you fear a different point
of view on how the web should be used?

Sorry, I (and millions of others) prefer sites that use Flash,
Javascript, new windows for links, embed media. I WANT to see web sites
like this, I want to buy from sites like this. I want to be
entertained. This does not mean that ALL sites should be like this, but
just that it is ok to have sites like this. Why is that so hard for you
to understand? Why can you (and others) not understand that sometimes
it is ok if your site requires javascript for navigation. Some times it
is ok to have an all flash site. Sometimes a pop up is acceptable.
Sometimes a new window on a link is ok.

Sorry, but don't try to force your likes and dislikes down my throat. I
don't tell you that you HAVE to do it my way, yet you feel that is if ok
for you to tell me I HAVE to do it your way.

Listen, I am sorry if you can't enjoy my site (either because you choose
not to, or because you physically can't). But just because YOU can not
enjoy my site. Does that mean that you have the right for tell others
THEY can't enjoy my site? How do you justify telling me that I can not
look at what I want to look at, in the manner I want to look at it, on
the web? What in the world makes you think you have the right to do
that?

Nothing that's what. There I feel better now.....

Oh yea, FYI, the quality goes _way_ up when you start getting involved
with Entertainers in LA. (I'm thinking more than a few of you understand
that last statement....)

Whitecrest Entertainment
www.whitecrestent.com
 
W

Whitecrest

I promise you, you've lost me as a potential customer.

Not only you, but lot of others to. But I gained a whole bunch that
prefer that kind of thing, so it is ok.
 
W

Wÿrm

<snip> Nope, Bit I know when I want to have a new window pop up.

so that "qualifies" you make decision for USER that he/she needs NEW window
ONLY, instead of giving them choice to use same window, or get new window?

What it is in user's freedom to make own decisions that SCARES you so much
that you want give them only ONE option instead of two?

Actually it is the same number of clicks that get you pissed off too....

it is not about "clicks" that pisses people off. All people do not se PC's
to browse net. There are palms, webtv's mobilephones and what ever one can
browse web with. Then those that use computers, well all people do not have
fast machines where new window is no that big annoyance. Try some older PC
with little of memory and slow gfx card and see if you like idea of new
poping windows too much after few time. Next you probably start droolingly
babble about joys of buying "new" PC or something (like nice salesdrone
would) but most people do NOT want/need new stuff for things they do when
old system works just fine as long as others do not start make CHOICES for
them how their PC should behave.

If you feel you want people open new windows, TELL THEM HOW TO DO IT! It do
not take that much space on text now does it? With that you achieve that you
do NOT make choice for them and force ONLY open new windows, and you also
manage educate them of how to use some features in their system.
 

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Members online

Forum statistics

Threads
473,744
Messages
2,569,484
Members
44,904
Latest member
HealthyVisionsCBDPrice

Latest Threads

Top